Strategic Command: European Theater (PC)

GameSpot editors' review

• CNET editors' rating: 3.5 stars Very good
  Detailed editors' rating
  Overall score: 7.2 (3.5 stars)

• Reviewed by:
  Tom Chick
• Reviewed on: 07/22/2002
• Updated on: 05/17/2006
• Released on: 07/16/2002
• Originally published on GameSpot: Strategic Command: European Theater (PC) Review

Strategic Command: European Theater is a simple and at times simplistic look at the epic sweep of World War II in Europe. It stretches from the huge sacrifices of manpower on the Eastern front to the submarines fighting the battle for the Atlantic. It addresses diverse elements such as technology, air power, amphibious landings, supply problems, and partisans in an accessible and streamlined way. For the most part, it's a satisfying re-creation of the struggle that defined the 20th century. But because it lacks a challenging AI, it eventually falls apart as anything other than a multiplayer game.

Strategic Command's level of detail strikes a perfect balance between getting bogged down in too much detail and glossing over important historical factors. In terms of complexity, Strategic Command is a notch or two above Hasbro's Axis & Allies board game and nowhere near the daunting challenge of Avalon Hill's intimidating Third Reich. Fans of SSI's Clash of Steel from 1993 will feel right at home.

The game is turn-based, and it is played on a map of Europe that is drawn with 50-mile hexes, divided into countries, and sprinkled with cities, oil fields, ports, and mines that produce resources. The map does a good job of focusing the action on historically important strategic considerations: The lure of Romanian oil, the rich resources of the southern USSR, the political importance of Moscow on the open steppes of Russia, Italy's rough terrain, Malta as a thorn in the Mediterranean, the slow going across North Africa, and the ever-popular English Channel are among the geographical features you'll find in Strategic Command. They're like familiar characters in a historical drama.

There are relatively few types of playing pieces representing each country's military forces. Land units are tank groups or infantry in one of two sizes (armies or corps). Air power consists of either fighter or bomber units. Naval units are battleships, cruisers, subs, or aircraft carriers. There are also headquarters units, which serve as mobile supply sources and give nearby units a combat bonus. A unit's distance from a supply source determines its fighting strength and how much it can be reinforced after suffering combat losses. Units even gain experience as they fight, which is then diluted as it receives replacements. You can even give each unit a unique name, which adds a nice bit of flavor to the game. Unfortunately, headquarters units are an exception to this rule, since they keep the names of their historical personages--so you can't put Colonel Klink in charge of your army group.

Strategic Command's coarse scale keeps the action manageable, but it causes a few historical problems. For instance, Germany's blitzkrieg tactics served them well as they moved through the Low Countries into France. But this isn't modeled very well in Strategic Command, where it's easy to use a couple of French armies to bottle up any attackers. The same is true of North Africa, where supply problems take a backseat to the fact that you can use only one army at a time to attack your opponent. Turns are of variable length depending on season, but this doesn't really serve any purpose other than to create a staccato flow of time. The hardships that the German army faced during winter in Russia are completely ignored. Instead, winter flies by in a few monthlong turns. Suddenly it's spring and no one is worse for the wear. For the most part, these concessions don't hurt the game so much as demonstrate the trade-offs that a wargame developer has to make in order to keep the gameplay simple.

Continue reading